If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will need to register and pay
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. Unregistered visitors can leave comments on the articles, your comments will not be visible until a moderator has approved it.

The bottom line is that it is probably do-able, but it is much more complex than most people who believe that the university only has to print the tickets, think. And that will cause a lot of push back at the negotiation table on the issue of neutral site v. on-campus site.

That doesn't even include everyone involved specifically with the football program. Sure, bare-bones staff at UNL. I have no idea how TO keeps that place running. I mean, they only have one employee who's job is to oversee Handicap Accessable seating!

As far as the police force, don't these college towns already hold at least 6 home games during the regular season? How would a playoff game be that much of a difference in terms of dealing with the public? Maybe I'm missing something with that. Sure, you're going to get more visiting fans, people associated with the BCS/NCAA, and media. That's not going to cause chaos in the streets. Those with the BCS/NCAA and media are there to work, not to get drunk and potentially cause trouble. (unless your Brent Musburger )

Additionally, these games would likely be played during Winter break for most schools, which mean fewer students, and fewer other events on the campus.

That doesn't even include everyone involved specifically with the football program. Sure, bare-bones staff at UNL. I have no idea how TO keeps that place running. I mean, they only have one employee who's job is to oversee Handicap Accessable seating!

As far as the police force, don't these college towns already hold at least 6 home games during the regular season? How would a playoff game be that much of a difference in terms of dealing with the public? Maybe I'm missing something with that. Sure, you're going to get more visiting fans, people associated with the BCS/NCAA, and media. That's not going to cause chaos in the streets. Those with the BCS/NCAA and media are there to work, not to get drunk and potentially cause trouble. (unless your Brent Musburger )

Additionally, these games would likely be played during Winter break for most schools, which mean fewer students, and fewer other events on the campus.

Those are all reasonable points you are making. As I said in my original post in this thread, though, is that I learned that there is so much more involved in putting on one of these games than you or I am aware of, that getting it all done/finalized with only a week or less notice is a monumental task for an institution. Do-able? Just about anything is do-able. Do some/many institutions think neutral sites would be better because they can know years in advance that they will be hosting a huge national football game? Some probably do, don't you think? We fans want it on campus for a variety of reasons: no travel expenses for many, cool atmosphere, get even with the SEC, etc., etc. But the universities may look at it from a slightly different angle.

Here is another thought: If NU were to play UT in the 2013 national semi-finals, and if UT were the higher seed and playing at home, NU might only get 3,000 tickets. NU could probably sell 20,000. If the game were in New Orleans at a neutral site and 15,000-20,000 tickets were available for NU, that would be very, very important to NU's program and its fans. There are definitely pluses and minuses on both sides that I believe we can assume the powers that be are discussing in full.

Those are all reasonable points you are making. As I said in my original post in this thread, though, is that I learned that there is so much more involved in putting on one of these games than you or I am aware of, that getting it all done/finalized with only a week or less notice is a monumental task for an institution. Do-able? Just about anything is do-able. Do some/many institutions think neutral sites would be better because they can know years in advance that they will be hosting a huge national football game? Some probably do, don't you think? We fans want it on campus for a variety of reasons: no travel expenses for many, cool atmosphere, get even with the SEC, etc., etc. But the universities may look at it from a slightly different angle.

Here is another thought: If NU were to play UT in the 2013 national semi-finals, and if UT were the higher seed and playing at home, NU might only get 3,000 tickets. NU could probably sell 20,000. If the game were in New Orleans at a neutral site and 15,000-20,000 tickets were available for NU, that would be very, very important to NU's program and its fans. There are definitely pluses and minuses on both sides that I believe we can assume the powers that be are discussing in full.

The difficulty in this for me though is fans will then try to pick and choose if they spring for the semi game but won't be able to go to the next game if the team advances, or hold out, skipping the semi game hoping their team advances. Very few will afford both I think. Not to mention how much more expensive it is to travel on a weeks notice (airfare-wise) if you were to do both and book after the win.

I am not sure how you so egregiously misread my post. I only said that there is no way schools are going to want to give 20% of their stadium to visiting teams. I didn't say I don't think on campus games will work. I only said that forcing 20% of the season ticket holders to give up their playoff ticket rights to the visiting team is not a good idea and will not likely be accepted by the universities. Let the visitors have their usual 3,000 seats, or whatever is left over from that 3,000 after the NCAA takes its required seats. Displacing 20% of their season ticket base for a national semi-final game is probably a deal breaker for most institutions.

Also, you inexplicably misread my post to think that people would have to give up season tickets to give 20% of a single playoff game to visitors. No. Under that plan they would be required to not be allowed to purchase a single game ticket to the playoff game; not their season tickets.

I didn't mean to come off as hostile if I did. I apologize for my fervor.

Of course they would want to give up 20% of their tickets to their stadium if the alternative is that they get maybe 35-45% of the tickets at a "neutral" site game.

What is better; having 80% of your home stadium or 40% of a "neutral" site?

The difficulty in this for me though is fans will then try to pick and choose if they spring for the semi game but won't be able to go to the next game if the team advances, or hold out, skipping the semi game hoping their team advances. Very few will afford both I think. Not to mention how much more expensive it is to travel on a weeks notice (airfare-wise) if you were to do both and book after the win.

This, I believe, is one of the strongest reasons in favor of having the early round games at home sites.

I didn't mean to come off as hostile if I did. I apologize for my fervor.

Of course they would want to give up 20% of their tickets to their stadium if the alternative is that they get maybe 35-45% of the tickets at a "neutral" site game.

What is better; having 80% of your home stadium or 40% of a "neutral" site?

Please answer that.

Of course it is better to have 80% of your home stadium. But it shouldn't come down to that. Either play at home sites and let the visitors get their normal allotment of tickets, or play at neutral sites for whatever reasons that would be better than at home sites. But don't choose home sites and then force 20% of the home teams' fans out of the stadium. Senseless.

I think Cardinal is on the right track here in that there are many difficulties with having a home site playoff game, however, it can be overcome. And it certainly should mean that the visiting team gets only the usual allotment for visitors.

How about the two semi-final games being pr-planned and played at a site that is neither in the deep south or cold north such as Salt Lake City or Memphis or Washington, DC. The weather could be a bit uncomfortable, but probably not extremely so. Maybe even a dome could be used, such as in St Louis or Indianapolis. It would most likely require travel by both fan bases and could result in an even split of tickets, plus have plenty of planning in advance made.

The Championship game could be rotated to the usual warm weather sites.

I know it would require two fan bases to make two expensive trips, but I suspect there will be enough excitement among both groups to fill the seats.

A playoff will not determine a true champion with any more certainty than the current system.

We disagree:
2000 #2 ranked Miami who beat FSU that was selected for the game
2003 #1 ranked USC who was passed over by OU and LSU
2004 Auburn, Utah, and Boise State who all finished undefeated
2008 Utah who finished undefeated and crushed Bama in the Sugar Bowl
2009 TCU and Boise who finished undefeated and were paired against each other in the Fiesta
2010 TCU undefeated and Rose Bowl Champion

I don't really buy the argument that schools won't have enough time to deal with hosting a game. These are multi-million dollar organizations. They can get it figured out. Also, I'm guessing school's would set up a post-season game, much like other sports, and other leagues do. They'll offer season ticket holders the chance to purchase their tickets (at an inflated price obviously), and after a certain point, those tickets not purchased will go on sale to the general public. I really don't see why that's so diffucult.

Plus, we're talking about 2 teams (in a 4-team playoff), or 4 teams (in an 8-team playoff) that will have to worry about this. It's highly likely only 10 teams will be in a position to host a playoff game when entering the month of November, so there can be some advanced planning by these schools.

In the end, D1 CFB would not be alone in the logistics of hosting a playoff game on such short notice. It'll take a couple of years to work out the bugs, but it shouldn't be a road block to a playoff system.

+1

It would be terrible if NCAA dignitaries had to be packed into a pressbox like sardines to watch a game.

I saw if you were good enough to earn a 1 or 2 seed for the "Four team event," then the home team should get to sell as many of it's tickets to season-ticket holders, minus the 3500 tickets usually reserved for visiting fans.

No way should a home team be forced to decide which of its season ticket holders should have to give up thier tickets for the most important game in decades.

I know it would require two fan bases to make two expensive trips, but I suspect there will be enough excitement among both groups to fill the seats.

I still hope they can make home sites work. But if there are neutral sites, I would think selling out would not be too much of a problem. I think a national semi-final game in college football would sell very well among the locals at the neutral site. Certainly much better than bowl games currently sell among locals. The playoff games will be much more meaningful, plus if the site rotates, it won't be an every year thing for the locals. I know I would go to see such a game if it were held within reasonable driving distance from my home. College football live is my favorite sports activity, behind only Stanley Cup finals games.

I think Cardinal is on the right track here in that there are many difficulties with having a home site playoff game, however, it can be overcome. And it certainly should mean that the visiting team gets only the usual allotment for visitors.

How about the two semi-final games being pr-planned and played at a site that is neither in the deep south or cold north such as Salt Lake City or Memphis or Washington, DC. The weather could be a bit uncomfortable, but probably not extremely so. Maybe even a dome could be used, such as in St Louis or Indianapolis. It would most likely require travel by both fan bases and could result in an even split of tickets, plus have plenty of planning in advance made.
The Championship game could be rotated to the usual warm weather sites.

I know it would require two fan bases to make two expensive trips, but I suspect there will be enough excitement among both groups to fill the seats.

I thought about that yesterday, also. I think going the pre-determinted neutral site route would work better with an 8-team playoff. That way you'd have four sites set up regionally for the first round. With a 4-team playoff you could get both fan bases travelling half-way across the country to see the semi's. That's just me, though.

I thought about that yesterday, also. I think going the pre-determinted neutral site route would work better with an 8-team playoff. That way you'd have four sites set up regionally for the first round. With a 4-team playoff you could get both fan bases travelling half-way across the country to see the semi's. That's just me, though.

Regionals would be tough. What if the top two seeds were in the same region? The number two seed would have to get shipped out into another region. Maybe the selection committee could put the top four seeds in an eight team playoff either (i) as close to home as possible, or (ii) in a region that is in any event closer to the higher seed's home than to the lower seed's home.

Regionals would be tough. What if the top two seeds were in the same region? The number two seed would have to get shipped out into another region. Maybe the selection committee could put the top four seeds in an eight team playoff either (i) as close to home as possible, or (ii) in a region that is in any event closer to the higher seed's home than to the lower seed's home.

That's a tough one, but there's going to be holes in any scenario. It's just finding which scenario is the one that best suits the players, and the top seeded teams.

That's a tough one, but there's going to be holes in any scenario. It's just finding which scenario is the one that best suits the players, and the top seeded teams.

I think we agree the best scenario is home sites for the first round at a minimum (I'd like to see first and second round in an 8-team playoff be at home sites), assuming the campus administrators believe they can pull it off at less expense than the income the event will generate.